tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post4144208121311961918..comments2015-03-31T13:08:09.316-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? YesDave Armstronghttps://plus.google.com/115516270318198347148noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6876959139368826522010-09-30T18:37:02.906-04:002010-09-30T18:37:02.906-04:00TUADF is now letting it rip over at Boors All:
&q...TUADF is now letting it rip over at <i>Boors All</i>:<br /><br />&quot;Although it pollutes the thread, Dave Armstrong&#39;s comments actually make him look bad, so I don&#39;t mind them remaining.&quot; (9-30-10)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285875777236#c2019132523709442682<br /><br />&quot;Please leave Dave Armstrong&#39;s invective up on this blog thread.<br />Both TurretinFan and Tim Enloe are used to it, although quite understandably, they are annoyed by it. I say let it remain because it clearly shows what a horse&#39;s ass he is.&quot; (9-30-10)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285881653999#c4638652855557110878<br /><br />&quot;I&#39;ll also say that I get comedic value out of Dave Armstrong&#39;s comments. They are so over the top in his rhetoric, plus the fact that he really believes in what he&#39;s writing, that I just bust out laughing at this pompous blowhard.&quot;<br />(9-30-10)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285881969656#c4434301091457060934Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26013203376734939622010-09-29T16:29:13.112-04:002010-09-29T16:29:13.112-04:00There is indeed such a thing as spam! And I ventur...There is indeed such a thing as spam! And I venture to guess that 99 out of 100 people (assuming they had no prior theological predisposition) would quickly classify TUAD&#39;s and TAO&#39;s recent rantings as exactly that.<br /><br />This goes beyond even our profound theological differences, to a basic ethical issue of how to behave on a blog. <br /><br />They&#39;re welcome even now to make rational arguments if they wish. But I won&#39;t tolerate garbage and nonsense polluting my blog.<br /><br />I feel like Steve Ray, feeling that he has to take a shower every time he has dealings with James White.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19426187764233242932010-09-29T16:23:15.787-04:002010-09-29T16:23:15.787-04:00Repetitious, non-substantive posts like those by T...Repetitious, non-substantive posts like those by TUAD and TAO merit deletion. They&#39;re spam, as you said, Dave, not because of the points they make, but because they&#39;re pointless. <br /><br />Are TUAD and TAO going to tell us when precisely we can and cannot use terms like anti-Communist, anti-evolution, anti-Castro, anti-Salafi, anti-Obama, anti-Reagan or anti-this or anti-that, or when James White should be permitted to label his opponents anti-Reformed or anti-Protestant?<br /><br />No? So what&#39;s the point of all this? Oh, yes, it has no point. I already said that, didn&#39;t I?Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48098299350656669622010-09-29T15:42:59.448-04:002010-09-29T15:42:59.448-04:00In other words, merely boring, boorish inanities a...In other words, merely boring, boorish inanities are deletable as spam, but fun, entertaining insults are worthy to be maintained in this blog for important documentary purposes (showing yet again how anti-Catholics &quot;argue&quot;; thus helping to destroy their already dubious intellectual and ethical credibility).Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89190624641844899902010-09-29T15:17:52.290-04:002010-09-29T15:17:52.290-04:00If we&#39;re such imbeciles, why not let our comme...<i>If we&#39;re such imbeciles, why not let our comments remain instead of deleting them? Then people can see that we are imbeciles.</i><br /><br />The ones that remain are quite sufficient for that purpose, thank you.<br /><br />Things will almost certainly get worse if you continue, and I will definitely leave all the juicy insults up, since that is my standard policy.<br /><br />When an opponent is self-destructing you get out of the way (and help broadcast it, too).Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56943911947612419252010-09-29T15:06:38.650-04:002010-09-29T15:06:38.650-04:00Dave WeakDeak,
Thanks for cross-posting my commen...Dave WeakDeak,<br /><br />Thanks for cross-posting my comment from Triablogue.Truth Unites... and Divideshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57502619086996251232010-09-29T15:06:09.069-04:002010-09-29T15:06:09.069-04:00. . . such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong....<i>. . . such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong.</i><br /><br />Oh, goody. Thanks! I&#39;ll definitely keep that up, for documentary purposes. Now we&#39;re on the way to yet another anti-Catholic publicly proclaiming that I am mentally ill. That&#39;s currently the most fashionable insult of yours truly in their ranks (though &quot;narcissist&quot; is very close behind).<br /><br />It&#39;s talking points, you know . . . think &quot;Democratic smear / attack ad politics&quot; and you get the picture.<br /><br />I want something really original. I&#39;m getting tired of &quot;psychotic&quot; (Swan), &quot;schizophrenic&quot; (Hays), &quot;you really do need to get therapy&quot; (Pike), etc. Can&#39;t you guys come up with something original? For original, we gotta go to someone like Gene Bridges, who compared me to Castro and the dictators of Iran and N. Korea (complete with pictures).<br /><br />Now <i>there</i> are some fun and dazzlingly original insults! I wanna see <i>that</i> level of creativity.<br /><br />If this keeps up, I will start hitting the &quot;spam&quot; button when deleting TUAD&#39;s and TAO&#39;s comments, which may mean (I don&#39;t know, because it is vague in Blogger) that the Blogger spam filter will pick out all their posts in the future and delete them as spam. Thus far, I chose &quot;delete&quot; when taking out their worthless posts. <br /><br />If that is what they desire, they can keep up the trolling idiocy.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79486573263313061402010-09-29T14:56:18.845-04:002010-09-29T14:56:18.845-04:00More yawningly predictable words and actions from ...More yawningly predictable words and actions from TUAD, posting at <i>Cryablogue</i>:<br /><br />***<br /><br />If anyone would like a copy of the post and thread that Dave WeakDeak wrote &quot;Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? Yes,&quot; then please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com.<br /><br />I&#39;ll send it to you as it was before Dave WeakDeak started deleting comments.<br /><br />You can then examine the thread as it really was instead of the chopped-up, slanted version that Dave WeakDeak is peddling.<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#8604589382028688335<br /><br />I knew he would do this. Who cares? I couldn&#39;t care less if his anti-Catholic clone-buddies read the original exchange. More power to them. I have nothing to hide. <br /><br />I&#39;m simply getting rid of the &quot;pollution&quot; on my blog for the sake of my readers. But TUAD&#39;s friends obviously have a much lower standard of reading material, so I imagine they would rather enjoy reading his and TAO&#39;s inanities.<br /><br />It has no effect on the substance of the issue here (whether Pike is an anti-Catholic). That remains uncontested.<br /><br />Let TUAD document all he wants. It is of no concern whatever to me, because my goal is not to &quot;hide&quot; but to maintain quality control and not to alienate intelligent readers who don&#39;t come here to read the rantings of fools. He won&#39;t get that, nor will TAO, but we know that is how they will react. Everyone else WILL get it.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6770457954057064462010-09-29T14:55:01.074-04:002010-09-29T14:55:01.074-04:00&quot;More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD...<i>&quot;More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD; hence, more deletions.&quot;</i><br /><br />If we&#39;re such imbeciles, why not let our comments remain instead of deleting them? Then people can see that we are imbeciles.<br /><br />But I say you&#39;re deleting our comments because they&#39;re really showing that you, Dave Armstrong, are the <b>real</b> imbecile. You&#39;re embarrassed and you want to hide. Hence, you delete comments and structure the thread discussion to a one-sided slant in your favor so that you don&#39;t look as bad as you would if you had just let all comments stay up.<br /><br />P.S. I&#39;d probably concede to the charge that I&#39;m not spending my time wisely by continuing to interact with such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong.Truth Unites... and Divideshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-103201262964372032010-09-29T14:41:08.187-04:002010-09-29T14:41:08.187-04:00More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD; henc...More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD; hence, more deletions.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36541499118405932012010-09-29T12:57:12.259-04:002010-09-29T12:57:12.259-04:00Note also how we are far from the topic, as usual,...Note also how we are far from the topic, as usual, with TAO and TUAD whining about not having the right to act stupidly and obnoxiously on my site, rather than providing any counter-evidence that my assertions about Peter Pike&#39;s anti-Catholicism (recently bolstered by further evidence, added to the end of the post) are erroneous.<br /><br />A gigantic stony silence, or insults only in reply, or topic-switching, generally indicates that one has quite sufficiently established his point. I&#39;ve seen it all, folks, in my nearly 15 years online.<br /><br />Pike had a big mouth when he thought he caught me in a terrible error (allegedly deleting his post). He went and put up his post &quot;proving&quot; that I am dishonest, and made a complete fool of himself. Now when he is caught by his own words about his own belief-system (after challenging me to do it), he has nothing to say at all. <br /><br />But it&#39;s at least a halfway sensible policy to say nothing if one has nothing worthwhile to say in response. That&#39;s better than the insults. He&#39;s already tried that and it hasn&#39;t worked out very well for him, because I am always happy to broadcast those unworthy tactics even further, to illustrate how anti-Catholics so often &quot;argue&quot;.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58790541598874286782010-09-29T12:19:04.616-04:002010-09-29T12:19:04.616-04:00I also have documentation of the boorishness of TA...I also have documentation of the boorishness of TAO&#39;s methodology (recently parroted by TUAD), if people wonder what I am talking about when I say they are being boorish:<br /><br /><i>To Bait or Not to Debate, That is the Question (Curious Tactics of &quot;Argument&quot; From Anti-Catholic &quot;Turretinfan&quot;)</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-bait-or-not-to-debate-that-is.html<br /><br />He literally (I kid you not) repeated the same question <b>72 TIMES</b>. As with TUAD recently (who was clearly copying his ridiculously silly, brain-dead tactics), I had long since answered it, several times.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56264272393079725552010-09-29T12:12:34.374-04:002010-09-29T12:12:34.374-04:00I may have deleted a comment here and there, sure....I may have deleted a comment here and there, sure. All blogmasters do that if they are concerned about quality on their sites. You two are the only ones who were massively deleted.<br /><br />In any event, deletions here are exceedingly / extremely rare. The point is that I am an advocate of free speech: always have been. Just because you two can&#39;t carry on a normal, civil discussion, and i refuse to allow my blog to be overrun by your puerile inanities, doesn&#39;t prove that I am delete-happy.<br /><br />You can try that line if you wish, but it won&#39;t fly. People here know my long, consistent record on the matter. People know that I preserve entire posts from my opponents, in my 650 posted debates.<br /><br />I post complete written debates with James White (including our famous 1995 &quot;postal debate&quot; that he fled from in terror at the end, and our 2000 live chat in his chat room). He never does that. He wants to hide my side of things, because he knows that is in his best interest.<br /><br />The real hypocrisy lies with your anti-Catholic buddies, who systematically, cynically delete because they are afraid of Catholic replies or because they don&#39;t care about folks hearing both sides. <br /><br />I&#39;ve documented James Swan&#39;s particularly outrageous hypocrisy, with blatant double standards (I&#39;m completely forbidden to comment there, now):<br /><br /><i>My Comments Deleted from the Anti-Catholic &quot;Boors All&quot; Blog For No Reason / Doe&#39;s Ludicrous Double Standards Regarding &quot;Banning&quot; Documented</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-comments-deleted-from-anti-catholic.html<br /><br />Hays regularly deletes my comments, and I have noted his seering hypocrisy as well:<br /><br /><i>Anti-Catholic Steve Hays, Too, Resorts to the Good Ol&#39; Delete Button, to Censor What I Wrote on His Blog</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/anti-catholic-steve-hays-too-resorts-to.html<br /><br />I am banned from White&#39;s chat room (esp. if David T. King Tut is present), was kicked out of Svendsen&#39;s old discussion forum, etc.<br /><br />Those things are systematic and comprehensive, whereas I have deleted extremely few posts in my 6 1/2 years blogging. They have to be either relentlessly insulting or stupid or both.<br /><br />I&#39;m usually a very patient man, but there comes a point where I get fed up with stupidity and asinine behavior and have had enough of it. I&#39;ve never been one to suffer fools and folly very well.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46100123169634930322010-09-28T23:31:29.679-04:002010-09-28T23:31:29.679-04:00It&#39;s needless to say that he is revising histo...It&#39;s needless to say that he is revising history. Those of you who were masochistic enough to actually follow the thread know what happened; for those who didn&#39;t, TUAD is spinning. <br /><br />He wouldn&#39;t answer a simple question that would have shown clearly whether he was anti-Catholic or not. That was his game. Then he kept asking me to answer his question, that I answered many times (read my comments about &quot;heresy&quot;). His condition was that I answer his before he would answer mine.<br /><br />Childish games . . . <br /><br />So now TUAD can play the game that I am given to false accusations and am now hiding the evidence. That will play well to the choir over at Hays&#39; slander-blog.<br /><br />Will these clowns ever grow up? Who has time for this? I wasted several hours today (time taken away from important work I had to do), hoping beyond hope that a <i>Cryablogue</i> regular like TUAD would actually engage in a normal, adult conversation. I learned my lesson. <br /><br />My idealism and optimism about reason winning out in the end will be the death of me . . .Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74288966606189742662010-09-28T23:23:49.418-04:002010-09-28T23:23:49.418-04:00More from TUAD at Cryablogue (he just doesn&#39;t ...More from TUAD at <i>Cryablogue</i> (he just doesn&#39;t get it; poor soul):<br /><br />Dave WeakDeak also deleted his own comments where he falsely accused me of being &quot;anti-Catholic&quot;.<br /><br />I challenged him on it and requested that he retract his false accusation.<br /><br />He refused, and threatened to delete my comments if I asked him to retract again.<br /><br />I wonder if his deleting of my comments and of his false accusations is his way of issuing a retraction without losing face.<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#8327749796816617564Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2309659301432232842010-09-28T19:43:13.825-04:002010-09-28T19:43:13.825-04:00There is quality control on this blog. We actually...There is quality control on this blog. We actually try to engage in intelligent discourse and dialogue, as opposed to playing games with words, repeating questions like a dumb robot 12 times, when they have already been answered in great depth, engaging in childish &quot;gotcha&quot; techniques, murdering or ignoring definitions of words, refusing childishly to answer a very relevant question, name-calling, refusing to interact with important points, etc.<br /><br />People read this blog to learn. It is an educational tool, and hopefully a place to be edified as well as educated.<br /><br />If I decide that certain people are lowering the quality of the discourse here to such an extent that it will reflect very badly on my overall goals and the high quality that I seek to present here (in other words, abusing their privilege of free speech that I am happy to grant them 99.999% of the time), then I will remove those posts. Everyone does this.<br /><br />Thankfully, such occasions are rare (not routine, or an outright banning, as with most of the anti-Catholic sites). The only two people in memory who had their posts removed (other than Viagra spammers), are Turretinfan (the imimitable TAO) and TUAD. <br /><br />The grounds were the same in both cases: tactics such as those described above, and extreme, insufferable boorishness: essentially the tactics of the troll (universally recognized online as a bannable or deletable offense).<br /><br />There is an entire blog for that sort of thing: <i>Boors All</i>, if someone wants to do that.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32722194965551399432010-09-28T19:34:44.268-04:002010-09-28T19:34:44.268-04:00TUAD (with yawning predictability), after acting l...TUAD (with yawning predictability), after acting like an ass in this thread, obnoxious as a class clown, went running over to <i>Cryablogue</i> to whine and say his piece about my decision to delete his nonsense:<br /><br />* * * * *<br /><br />Dave Armstrong is just a walking self-parody.<br /><br />He complains about his comments being deleted on other people&#39;s blogs, then he has the hypocritical gall to delete my comments.<br /><br />If his subjective tastes don&#39;t like my comments, then he needs to consistently grant that other people may subjectively not like his comments either and that&#39;s why they get deleted.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong is a hypocrite.<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#3006412569831803839Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36492642155955898892010-09-28T19:27:41.665-04:002010-09-28T19:27:41.665-04:00When it says &quot;URL too large&quot; it usually ...When it says &quot;URL too large&quot; it usually posts anyway. Go check if it did before trying to post again. I go through this all the time too.<br /><br />I have added new data (from the Pikester himself) proving Pike&#39;s Catholicism, to the post, as of 7:30 PM EST Tuesday.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16241983268561299012010-09-28T19:24:41.771-04:002010-09-28T19:24:41.771-04:00I&#39;m deleting TAO&#39;s and TUADs posts now (in...I&#39;m deleting TAO&#39;s and TUADs posts now (in this thread) because they are uniformly boorish and inane.<br /><br />Perhaps they can do better in another thread, but my patience is exhausted in this one.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-87940789635114425622010-09-28T19:06:06.242-04:002010-09-28T19:06:06.242-04:00There&#39;s no question that Blogger is having pro...There&#39;s no question that Blogger is having problems with posting comments. Almost everything I try to post, I guess because it&#39;s typically lengthy, says &quot;URI Too Large.&quot; So I post double just to make sure it gets on there, then I delete the duplicate. Weird. Sometimes it never gets posted so I do it again. Then later both posts show up and again I have to delete one of them.Pilgrimsarbourhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-52322288634027376512010-09-28T18:49:03.408-04:002010-09-28T18:49:03.408-04:00TUAD: Don&#39;t throw stones when you live in a gl...TUAD: Don&#39;t throw stones when you live in a glass house, Dave. <br /><br />Adomnan: Don&#39;t use cliches when you have nothing worthwhile to say, TUAD.Adomnanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19445114133169056432010-09-28T18:40:43.522-04:002010-09-28T18:40:43.522-04:00Meanwhile, I have found even better, undeniable pr...Meanwhile, I have found even better, undeniable proof that Pike is an anti-Catholic (or at least was for sure at the time he wrote it). Stay tuned. Shortly, I&#39;ll be adding it to the post itself.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57762479766376824932010-09-28T18:03:59.931-04:002010-09-28T18:03:59.931-04:00Dave,
O.K., back. Well, it seems like this combox...Dave,<br /><br />O.K., back. Well, it seems like this combox has really taken off. Who knew?<br /><br /><br /><i>But your friends, whom you &quot;respect&quot; are quite content to say:<br />&quot;inveterate liar Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;schizophrenic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;narcissistic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;vow-breaker Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;idiot and ignoramus Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;self-anointed so-called apologist Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;psychotic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;evil Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;egomaniac Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />. . . and so forth. And you&#39;re concerned that I simply say they are &quot;anti-Catholic Protestants because they deny that Catholicism is Christian?</i><br /><br />There are a lot of folks that I respect for their knowledge, but with whom I am much less enamoured at the manner in which they conduct themselves online sometimes. I am not one who thinks that a person must either be totally respected or not. I think we can have degrees of respect for people without &quot;throwing the baby out with the bathwater.&quot;<br /><br />There have been times I have inquired of them both publicly <i>and</i> privately regarding their use of what I consider to be unhelpful inflammatory language. You know this to be true because I have talked to you privately as well about your use of what I consider to be inflammatory language. At no time am I using my sinful self as the standard, since I can be snarky too. But the justification answer I get from both sides is always the same: &quot;They do it too, and they&#39;re even worse!&quot; It happens every time. Your complaint is about the <i>type</i> of insults they use. Their complaint is about the <i>sheer volume</i> of insults (in their view) used by you against them. Let&#39;s face it, Dave. For sheer volume of words written, you are at the top of the heap.<br /><br />I have seen from time to time certain modifications of language on both sides, and even removal of offending comments and parts of posts. There is an attempt to do better and that&#39;s always a good thing. Until, that is, some new offence occurs and the whole thing is out the window again.<br /><br />I would frame this in a way which is similar to the Ground Zero Mosque debate. We have a right to say and do certain things, but is it prudent? Is there a time when our rights should give way to a greater good? If we <i>know</i> from experience that something is received as particularly inflammatory, shouldn&#39;t we consider using an alternate way of expressing the same idea? Could it be that Paul&#39;s admonition in 1 Cor. 8 regarding the weaker brother might be applied here as well?Pilgrimsarbourhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6308864305406436282010-09-28T17:49:36.019-04:002010-09-28T17:49:36.019-04:00I have decided to delete most TUAD&#39;s remarks a...I have decided to delete most TUAD&#39;s remarks and most of the worthless interchange on the grounds of stupidity and boorishness.<br /><br />If we can get back to the intelligent discussion initiated by Pilgrimsarbour, then maybe we can accomplish something.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47195263115617531672010-09-28T17:35:53.618-04:002010-09-28T17:35:53.618-04:00Pilgrimsarbour: &quot;I wouldn&#39;t say, for exa...<b>Pilgrimsarbour</b>: <i>&quot;I wouldn&#39;t say, for example, &quot;anti-Protestant Dave Armstrong&quot;</i>&quot;<br /><br /><b>Dave Armstrong</b>: <i>&quot;But your friends, whom you &quot;respect&quot; are quite content to say:<br /><br />&quot;inveterate liar Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;schizophrenic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;narcissistic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;vow-breaker Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;idiot and ignoramus Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;self-anointed so-called apologist Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;psychotic Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;evil Dave Armstrong&quot;<br />&quot;egomaniac Dave Armstrong&quot;<br /><br />. . . and so forth.&quot;</i><br /><br /><b>Dave Armstrong</b>: &quot;<i>I can&#39;t retract what I don&#39;t know to be false.&quot;</i><br /><br />Dave, I don&#39;t know if you have asked these folks who have said these things about you to retract their statements, but if you have, then it&#39;s perfectly acceptable for them to reply to you in the way that you replied to me:<br /><br />&quot;I can&#39;t retract what I don&#39;t know to be false.&quot;<br /><br />And you would have to accept it.<br /><br />Don&#39;t throw stones when you live in a glass house, Dave.Truth Unites... and Divideshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com